Shipbucket

Proving that you're the guy who made the post at Warships1 and proving you didn't plagiarize are two different things.

That's mostly because, despite how fanticiful his design is, he still puts through and effort into his design and actually makes room for his weapon systems.

You misspelt fanciful.

Besides, maybe I'd make room for weapon systems if you actually provided useful advice on what I needed to do. If I recall correctly, you dropped a one liner insult like, "I'd like to steal that for nation states." And then didn't provide any useful posts after that.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

I never took credit for anything. That's what you tried to insinuate I was doing. I was simply trying to start a discussion thread, which you've since derailed.

And, Wikipedia is free-content based. But I'll rewrite those original posts just because you've brought the subject up. Of course, really it's a waste of time since it's not really an academic publication, and was never presented as such. It was a discussion starter on an internet forum.

What this all boils down to, is you having a personal grudge against me because I called you out in more than one thread, and disagreed with you. Really it's pretty childish. You could also have PM'd me (which is what mods are suppose to do by the way), and asked me to fix the problem. And I would have. And I am going to rewrite it anyways, just because I'm tired of all the posts about the subject.

Also, to my knowledge, the goal of this forum is to discuss warships, concepts relating thereof and drawing warships and ships of all mediums. Not engaging in frivolous personal attacks. I'll state right now Tim, I have nothing against you. But if I think you're wrong about something, I will disagree in subsequent posts, since discussing it is the only way people can understand complicated issues and situations. And warships are very complicated. I'll try my best to follow the forum rules in doing so, and will try to keep it civil.

If that bothers you, I apologize. But we can't all be right, all the time. Sorry. You'll have to forgive me if I don't just, "take your word on it." This is the internet afterall.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Other than some ship specs, and a few minor bits of opinion in the first 12 pages out of 35 of your screed that I pasted into a word document, not a single word is your own.

Without citations that's plagiarism plain and simple.
And in the first third of the two posts you started this thread with you don't quote wikipedia at all.
This isn't a personal grudge, if I start a personal grudge I guarantee, you'll see somethin' new.*

You are a very unlearned individual. And I'm a mini-mod, not a full mod, so outside of the Parts Discussion Forum my words are not 'Backed with Nuclear Weapons'*

*Cookie for the person who gets either reference. Two cookies if the first person get both.

On that note, I'm bowing out of the rancid thread as I don't need the stupid or the plagiarism to get on me.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

(knowing you, Dr Who? just a stab in the dark)

Battleships have two purposes today; Museums and national pride that's all (unfortunately), I cannot see Battleships being major fleet player in the next 25-50 years

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

So CATZ, are you going to get round to responding to my critique of your ideas? Or are you going to ignore it?

I'm loosing the will to live. I know its Monday morning and all, and I do try to read (or at least scan for naughty bits ) every post, but I can't quite see the logic of cluttering up the Forum with a cut and paste from another site - wouldn't it have been kinder (to my old eyes at least) to simply provide a link, even if the work belongs to oneself. Still, folk seem to like getting involved in arcane arguments so who am I to spoil their fun?

well lets this by offical warning: In future, if you (or anyone else) post direct copypasta from anywhere, Provide link or credits to the orginal author/source. Otherwise face the nukes.
And oh yes, this is not academic circles in sense, this is something lot more serious, this is internet!!

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Sorry. Busy with Tim's deranged rant. But since he finally decided to drop the subject,

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA481976

Taking Bill's advice, I don't want to copy and paste a bunch of stuff here from that doc. It does however offer considerable information on the cost of operating a BB vs a CVN.

It offers several arguments,

1.) Create a new capital warship with major caliber guns to mitigate the Joint Fires/NSFS gap.

2.) Build more DD(X)'s to mitigate the NSFS gap.

3.) Reactivate the Iowa's.

The bottom-line is that all options are expensive, but are cheaper than building and operating a 12th carrier (which the USN is planning to do within the next 10 years), which won't mitigate the NSFS gap. It's written by an Army Colonel who's studying to be an analyst for the military (and strategy and campaign planner), so I'd give him top marks for credibility. This also IMO disproves anything said by you or the users on Warships 1. His ultimate conclusion, is that building and operating a new capital warship (read that, BB) would be the best option, in lieu of building a 12th carrier, which the USN doesn't really need. So his conclusion is, to operate and maintain 11 carriers, and 4 or more new generation BB's.

If you want a credible source for this long standing argument of ideals, then this is the source. It's from military website, so you know it's authentic. It's from a professional analyst who wrote this as his master thesis, so you know he's a professional in the field he's discussing, and he covers ALL the bases on ALL the arguments surrounding this controversy.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

I'll give you time to read that. Then I'll start responding to your post.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"